The Kilravock ROSEs are a sought-after connection due to the family's
fame and antiquity (see
entry at Wikipedia). Although R1b is the most common haplogroup
in western Europe, especially in the British Isles (see
maps), and even though deep SNP testing has shown them to be R-1b1a-2a1a-1b4
(a.k.a., R-L21), the most common subclade of Haplogroup
R1b, the Group G haplotype remains uncommon.

There is reason to believe the surname here was originally DE ROS or
ROSS, and the Group G ROSEs of the ROSE
DNA Project appear to be genetically connected to the Group 1 ROSSs
of the ROSS
DNA Project.

Given that the paper lineages in this family extend back into the 14th
Century, there has been an opportunity for the accumulation of more mutations
within the famlily than is typical for the average person being tested
for genealogical purposes, which means it's especially important to test
more markers. The ROSS project has been rather effective in getting
its members to upgrade to 67 markers. I strongly recommend the ROSEs
upgrade, too.

To view more of the page without scrolling, temporarily
reduce the text size in your browser. Red labels indicate markers
that typically mutate more frequently than those labeled in black.(Empty cells that are darkened indicate those tests have
not been ordered.)

To view lineages, please scroll to
the right.

GD = Genetic Distance, the
number of mutation events separating two haplotypes. For the Group G Kilravock
ROSEs, it's the GD from the test subject to the ROSE Group G modal haplotype..
For the Group 1 ROSSs, it's the GD from the test subject to the ROSS Group
1 modal haplotype.

GROUP

GD(cumulative)

Surname

Kit #

YsearchUserID

Haplotype
— as determined by STR testing

Lineage

Markers 1-12

Markers 13-25

Markers 26-37

Markers 38-67

Advanced Markers

at12

at25

at37

at67

393

390

19/394

391

a|385

b|385

426

388

439

i|389

392

ii|389

458

a|459

b|459

455

454

447

437

448

449

a|464

b|464

c|464

d|464

460

H4|GATA

IIa|YCA

IIb|YCA

456

607

576

570

a|CDY

b|CDY

442

438

531

578

a|S1395

b|S1395

590

537

641

472

S1406

511

425

a|413

b|413

557

594

436

490

534

450

444

481

520

446

617

568

487

572

640

492

565

461

462

A10|GATA

C4|635

GAAT1B07

441

445

452

463

R1b
Modals

XQJ7H

13

24

14

11

11

14

12

12

12

13

13

29

17

9

10

11

11

25

15

19

29

15

15

17

17

11

11

19

23

16

15

18

17

36

38

12

12

11

9

15

16

8

10

10

8

10

10

12

23

23

16

10

12

12

15

8

12

22

20

13

12

11

13

11

11

12

12

12

11

13

23

10

13

12

11

22

per Mike Walsh (as of 4 Jan 2011)

G

Kilravock
ROSE Modals

Z5EAR

14

25

14

11

10

14

12

12

12

14

13

30

16

9

9

11

11

25

15

19

32

14

15

17

17

11

11

19

23

15

15

19

18

38

42

12

12

11

9

15

16

9

10

10

8

11

10

12

23

23

17

10

12

12

13

8

13

22

20

14

13

11

13

11

11

12

12

12

11

13

23

10

13

12

12

22

n=14 at 12; n=13 at 25; n=11 at
37; n=4 at 67; n=1 for advanced markers

If you trust my tabulation of the Genetic Differences
(GD), you can skip this section; otherwise, read on. Genetic differences
in some multicopy markers are not necessarily counted the way they are
for single-copy markers. For example, any change in DYS385i is reflected
in DYS385ii, so a change in both is considered a single mutation event,
which is thereason I've greyed out the table cells for DYS385ii.
It should not be counted as a mutation event; only DYS385i should be counted.

Another multicopy marker that cannot be directly counted
is DYS464(abcd). To begin with, the real order of the copies is not
known, so by convention they are simply reported lo-hi. Reordering
the markers so there is the least difference between the two hyplotypes
gives a more more conservative view of their actual differences.
In addition, DYS464 is prone to two-step mutations, so even a difference
of two at the same marker should be counted as a single mutation event.
For example, the mutation from 17 to 15 in DYS464c should be counted as
a single mutation event, not two.

Lastly, CDYa and CDYb are volatile markers that can change
by 1 to 4 repeats in a single mutation event, therefore any change of 4
or fewer markers is considered a single mutation event. In fact, these
markers are so volatile in this family, giving them modal values and using
those values to calculate genetic distance may be giving false genetic
distances.

We remain frustrated here that more members have not tested a full
67 markers, especially that more ROSEs have not done so. That the
ROSS/ROSE surname is a comparatively old one appears to be reflected in
genetic distances that are somewhat greater than usually encounted in a
family descended from a single progenitor in genealogical time. For
this reason it remains more important than usual for every to test 67 markers
because some of these distances are great enough to be less than a slam
dunk match. We need more "in-betweeners"
to tie everyone together. Everyone please upgrade!

I'm not convinced #32119 belongs with the Kilvarock ROSEs. Please
note his genetic distances from the family's modal haplotype compared to
the others (and to the guidelines below).
It is especially concerning that he is a mis-match at four of the family's
signature
markers. The RFA places him here, despite the low probability
of his match (only 76%). All the other ROSEs in Group G are matching
at probabilities from 91-100%. This individual has been deep
SNP tested, and he is not just L21+, he is L513+. This places
him in a haplogroup subclade of R1b that is not currently recognized by
FTDNA, but is recognized by ISOGG (see
haplotree comparisons). I urge any others whose results appear
in this table to contact me and share their deep SNP test results.
Especially, does anyone else share the L513+ SNP?

The two MacNEILLs and the HOOPER apparently have NPEs
in their patrilineal lines and are really ROSEs. It's not insignificant
that the former have no matches in the MacNEILL
project, except with each other, and the latter has no match, at all,
in the HOOPER
project.

Although placed in Group 1 by the ROSS project, I don't believe #6365
or #145061 belong here (note their GD from the modal). I didn't include
them as part of the sample size (n) or for determining the modals for Group
1.